Gus on ESPN

[alexava 6,973]

If you add games anything can happen. We saw tbat with osu. No body other than osu players thought they could match bama last year. There was no controversy about the seeding of 1-3. 4,5,6 is where it got messy. Some one will always be left out. Don't matter if you take 16.

[Rednilla 5,383]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

First time i disagree with Gus. I liked the BCS better.

So...it didn't bother you all that much when we went undefeated against the fourth most difficult schedule in the country, beating 4 top 10 teams along the way (one of them twice), and still got left out of the BCSNCG?

no that was the system , but that was the only time it missed. The teams ahead of us earned the spot as well.

I could be wrong (I am most of the time), but I believe that bama and FSU would have been in the championship game last year if we still had the BCS. Neither one of them would have deserved it either. I am happy with the four teams for now and will be happy if the expand it to 8. War Eagle!

I agree with Gus as well -- I think 8 teams would be the ideal number for a NC playoff. Would have loved to see TCU & Baylor as part of the playoff last season. I'm so glad cfb has finally gone the playoff route and we never again will have to debate the BCS.

[alexava 6,973]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

[Rednilla 5,383]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

You're right, they did. But, again, they never should have been there to begin with. Forget what happened in the rematch; LSU went to Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama, won the SEC Championship, and then Alabama got to play for it all without having to go through the SECCG first. Oklahoma State had the same record as Bama did, AND won their conference outright, but didn't get the chance to play for it all.

We started this back and forth because you said 04 was the only time the BCS got it wrong, and even though a team that would not have made it into the BCS national championship game blew Bama out of the water this past season, you still think the fact that Bama won so decisively in 2011 justifies them being in the BCS over OK State? Seriously? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two viewpoints?

*Edit* One more point: playing in the Sugar Bowl is not the same as playing in Baton Rouge. UAT fans were able to get a lot more tickets to that game than LSU fans were able to get tickets to the one in Turdville, meaning they had a significantly smaller home field advantage than if it had been a regular season matchup in Death Valley. Rather, it's more akin to UCLA wanting us to play our home portion of a home and home series with them in the Georgia Dome. Yeah, we might have had more fans there, but it's not going to be the same kind of atmosphere as it would be in our home stadium, nor is it a field the players would have been nearly as familiar with as the one they play MOST of their home games at.

[aushrink 22]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

You're right, they did. But, again, they never should have been there to begin with. Forget what happened in the rematch; LSU went to Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama, won the SEC Championship, and then Alabama got to play for it all without having to go through the SECCG first. Oklahoma State had the same record as Bama did, AND won their conference outright, but didn't get the chance to play for it all.

We started this back and forth because you said 04 was the only time the BCS got it wrong, and even though a team that would not have made it into the BCS national championship game blew Bama out of the water this past season, you still think the fact that Bama won so decisively in 2011 justifies them being in the BCS over OK State? Seriously? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two viewpoints?

*Edit* One more point: playing in the Sugar Bowl is not the same as playing in Baton Rouge. UAT fans were able to get a lot more tickets to that game than LSU fans were able to get tickets to the one in Turdville, meaning they had a significantly smaller home field advantage than if it had been a regular season matchup in Death Valley. Rather, it's more akin to UCLA wanting us to play our home portion of a home and home series with them in the Georgia Dome. Yeah, we might have had more fans there, but it's not going to be the same kind of atmosphere as it would be in our home stadium, nor is it a field the players would have been nearly as familiar with as the one they play MOST of their home games at.

Save your breath Rednilla.

That guy is NOT an Auburn fan if he is not upset at 2004.

Alexava is a bammer troll. Not one doubt in my mind.

[alexava 6,973]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

You're right, they did. But, again, they never should have been there to begin with. Forget what happened in the rematch; LSU went to Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama, won the SEC Championship, and then Alabama got to play for it all without having to go through the SECCG first. Oklahoma State had the same record as Bama did, AND won their conference outright, but didn't get the chance to play for it all.

We started this back and forth because you said 04 was the only time the BCS got it wrong, and even though a team that would not have made it into the BCS national championship game blew Bama out of the water this past season, you still think the fact that Bama won so decisively in 2011 justifies them being in the BCS over OK State? Seriously? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two viewpoints?

*Edit* One more point: playing in the Sugar Bowl is not the same as playing in Baton Rouge. UAT fans were able to get a lot more tickets to that game than LSU fans were able to get tickets to the one in Turdville, meaning they had a significantly smaller home field advantage than if it had been a regular season matchup in Death Valley. Rather, it's more akin to UCLA wanting us to play our home portion of a home and home series with them in the Georgia Dome. Yeah, we might have had more fans there, but it's not going to be the same kind of atmosphere as it would be in our home stadium, nor is it a field the players would have been nearly as familiar with as the one they play MOST of their home games at.

Save your breath Rednilla.

That guy is NOT an Auburn fan if he is not upset at 2004.

Alexava is a bammer troll. Not one doubt in my mind.

you are not very perceptive for a shrink. If you are still upset at 2004 you need a shrink.

[alexava 6,973]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

You're right, they did. But, again, they never should have been there to begin with. Forget what happened in the rematch; LSU went to Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama, won the SEC Championship, and then Alabama got to play for it all without having to go through the SECCG first. Oklahoma State had the same record as Bama did, AND won their conference outright, but didn't get the chance to play for it all.

We started this back and forth because you said 04 was the only time the BCS got it wrong, and even though a team that would not have made it into the BCS national championship game blew Bama out of the water this past season, you still think the fact that Bama won so decisively in 2011 justifies them being in the BCS over OK State? Seriously? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two viewpoints?

*Edit* One more point: playing in the Sugar Bowl is not the same as playing in Baton Rouge. UAT fans were able to get a lot more tickets to that game than LSU fans were able to get tickets to the one in Turdville, meaning they had a significantly smaller home field advantage than if it had been a regular season matchup in Death Valley. Rather, it's more akin to UCLA wanting us to play our home portion of a home and home series with them in the Georgia Dome. Yeah, we might have had more fans there, but it's not going to be the same kind of atmosphere as it would be in our home stadium, nor is it a field the players would have been nearly as familiar with as the one they play MOST of their home games at.

by your logic that a one loss ok st was more deserving than a one loss bammer. Then how is an undefeated auburn more deserving than undefeated Oklahoma and USC who also won there conferences?

[GordoAU 87]

Out of perspective. with a 8 team playoff could a smaller school that was undefeated possibly get that 8 seed? like a Boise State or Troy?

[alexava 6,973]

Out of perspective. with a 8 team playoff could a smaller school that was undefeated possibly get that 8 seed? like a Boise State or Troy?

no telling. depends on the criteria i guess.

[cole256 17,043]

was there any doubt bammer was the best team after the smoke cleared in 2012?

Yes. That's like saying there is no doubt that USC was the best team in the country in 04 despite the season Auburn had. Bama was 1-1 against LSU with one less win overall (and the loss coming at home), while there was another power conference champion (Oklahoma St.) with only one loss. Ergo, a solid argument could STILL be made for either of those teams having been more deserving, and it's pretty darned difficult to argue that a team from a power conference with the same amount of losses as Bama should not have been playing for the national championship ahead of the Tide.

And it was 2011, not 2012. That was my mistake for mixing up the years to begin with.

they destroyed LSU in new orleans? you cant be serious. no body hates them more than i do.

You're right, they did. But, again, they never should have been there to begin with. Forget what happened in the rematch; LSU went to Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama, won the SEC Championship, and then Alabama got to play for it all without having to go through the SECCG first. Oklahoma State had the same record as Bama did, AND won their conference outright, but didn't get the chance to play for it all.

We started this back and forth because you said 04 was the only time the BCS got it wrong, and even though a team that would not have made it into the BCS national championship game blew Bama out of the water this past season, you still think the fact that Bama won so decisively in 2011 justifies them being in the BCS over OK State? Seriously? Do you really not see the disconnect between those two viewpoints?

*Edit* One more point: playing in the Sugar Bowl is not the same as playing in Baton Rouge. UAT fans were able to get a lot more tickets to that game than LSU fans were able to get tickets to the one in Turdville, meaning they had a significantly smaller home field advantage than if it had been a regular season matchup in Death Valley. Rather, it's more akin to UCLA wanting us to play our home portion of a home and home series with them in the Georgia Dome. Yeah, we might have had more fans there, but it's not going to be the same kind of atmosphere as it would be in our home stadium, nor is it a field the players would have been nearly as familiar with as the one they play MOST of their home games at.

Save your breath Rednilla.

That guy is NOT an Auburn fan if he is not upset at 2004.

Alexava is a bammer troll. Not one doubt in my mind.

Posts like these is why there are very few on this board I can take seriously, didn't agree with you so he's a bammer troll? You sound more like a bammer than he does and it's not close

[Rednilla 5,383]

by your logic that a one loss ok st was more deserving than a one loss bammer. Then how is an undefeated auburn more deserving than undefeated Oklahoma and USC who also won there conferences?

An undefeated Auburn team was more deserving than EITHER Oklahoma OR USC, because in spite of USC being clearly superior to Oklahoma, Auburn's strength of schedule vastly trumped that of either team. We beat defending national champion LSU, undefeated Tennessee (at a packed out Rocky Top...that was extremely quiet for all but maybe the first half of the first quarter), a Georgia team whose only loss had come in a nail biter (after the starting QB had already gotten hurt), and then beat Tennessee AGAIN in the SEC Championship. All of those teams were in the top 10. However, the talking heads all focused on the strength of the bottom of the schedule, because we don't get to play in a conference that has a built in range of bad-to-middling teams with no more than 3 legitimate contenders to afford the luxury of playing a heavy out of conference schedule.

Of course, I don't think AU was clearly better than USC, I just believe we had the better case for playing in the national championship game. But had it been AU-USC, as it should have been...it would have been one for the ages, I believe.

However, every bit of that is completely beside the point, because no matter what, there was no way to get all of the truly deserving teams in. In 2011, however, one loss Okie St was CLEARLY more deserving of playing for it all than one loss Alabama for two reasons: 1) They won their conference, and 2) They hadn't already played and lost to the other team in a two team championship game.

[arein0 950]

by your logic that a one loss ok st was more deserving than a one loss bammer. Then how is an undefeated auburn more deserving than undefeated Oklahoma and USC who also won there conferences?

An undefeated Auburn team was more deserving than EITHER Oklahoma OR USC, because in spite of USC being clearly superior to Oklahoma, Auburn's strength of schedule vastly trumped that of either team. We beat defending national champion LSU, undefeated Tennessee (at a packed out Rocky Top...that was extremely quiet for all but maybe the first half of the first quarter), a Georgia team whose only loss had come in a nail biter (after the starting QB had already gotten hurt), and then beat Tennessee AGAIN in the SEC Championship. All of those teams were in the top 10. However, the talking heads all focused on the strength of the bottom of the schedule, because we don't get to play in a conference that has a built in range of bad-to-middling teams with no more than 3 legitimate contenders to afford the luxury of playing a heavy out of conference schedule.

Of course, I don't think AU was clearly better than USC, I just believe we had the better case for playing in the national championship game. But had it been AU-USC, as it should have been...it would have been one for the ages, I believe.

However, every bit of that is completely beside the point, because no matter what, there was no way to get all of the truly deserving teams in. In 2011, however, one loss Okie St was CLEARLY more deserving of playing for it all than one loss Alabam for two reasons: 1) They won their conference, and 2) They hadn't already played and lost to the other team in a two team championship game.

^^^This

[FHeal 4]

+2 and not to

by your logic